Advertisement

Happiness by Maximization?

  • Kurt Bayertz
Chapter
Part of the Happiness Studies Book Series book series (HAPS)

Abstract

When having to decide what action to take, most people want to achieve the best outcome possible. A merely good outcome seems to be less attractive, let alone a bad outcome. But what is ‘the best’? Obviously it is something that has to be characterised qualitatively: in terms of pleasure or altruism, for example. But in order to be ‘the best’ it is seemingly not sufficient to do what is pleasurable or altruistic if we are in a position to do something which is more pleasurable or more altruistic. This introduces a quantitative dimension. More of something good is better than less of it. Money is a fine example, but not the only one. If one has the choice, it would be preposterous to prefer poorer to better health, less beauty to more, a shorter life to a longer one, less justice to more. What could be wrong with that? Nevertheless, it will be argued in this chapter that a general tendency to maximising the outcomes of one’s actions is not conducive to one’s happiness and, therefore, not rational. Furthermore, some of the reasons why this is the case will be considered.

Keywords

Maximisation Principle Sale Price Decisional Situation Practical Rationality Potential Buyer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the “Hanse Wissenschaftskolleg” in Delmenhorst for providing me with a fellowship in 2009/10 on which I began the work on the problems of maximisation. I continued this research as part of my ongoing project at the “Center for Advanced Study in Bioethics” at the University of Münster. I am grateful to my colleagues at this centre as well as Nikola Kompa (Osnabrück) and Aloys Prinz (Münster), for helpful comments on earlier versions of the present paper. The German text was translated into English by Sarah L. Kirkby.

References

  1. Becker GS (1976) The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Chowdhurdy TG, Ratneshwar S, Mohanty P (2009) The time-hurried shopper: exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers. Mark Lett 20:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diab DL, Gillespie MA, Highhouse S (2008) Are maximizers really unhappy? The measurement of maximizing tendency. Judgment Decis Making 3:364–370Google Scholar
  4. Gauthier D (1986) Morals by agreement. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Haybron DM (2008) The pursuit of unhappiness. The elusive psychology of well-being. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Iyengar SS, Wells RE, Schwartz B (2006) Doing better but feeling worse. Looking for the “best” job undermines satisfaction. Psychol Sci 17:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jamieson D, Elliot R (2009) Progressive consequentialism. Philosophical Perspectives 23:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein G (2001) The fiction of optimization. In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded rationality. The adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 103–121Google Scholar
  9. Luce RD, Raiffa H (1957) Games and decisions. Introduction and critical survey. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Mill JS (1969) Utilitarianism. In: Robson JM (ed) Essays on ethics, religion and society. Volume 10 of collected works of John Stuart Mill. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  11. Mulgan T (2001) The demands of consequentialism. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Parker AM, de Bruin WB, Fischhoff B (2007) Maximizers versus satisficers: decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes. Judgement Decis Making 2:342–350Google Scholar
  13. Plato. Gorgias. translated with notes by Terence Irwin (2009) Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Savulescu J, Kahane G (2009) The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23:274–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: why more is less. Ecco, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Schwartz B, Ward A, Lyubomirsky S, Monterosso J, White K, Lehman DR (2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:1178–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sen A (1997) Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrics 65:745–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sen A (2000) Consequential evaluation and practical reason. J Philos 97:477–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations